Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Fly Rock Ordinance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Van Buren supervisors table rewrite of fly-rock ordinance after notice, evidence and repeal questions raised

Van Buren County Board of Supervisors · April 28, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board continued debate on a proposed rewrite of Ordinance #2023-2 about fly rock from blasting, including concerns that property owners were not receiving advance notice and a proposal to require timestamped video evidence; the board voted to table action until the county attorney can advise whether repeal procedures require a particular motion.

The Van Buren County Board of Supervisors on April 28 continued a discussion of the countys Fly Rock Ordinance (Ordinance #2023-2) after residents and board members raised questions about notice, evidence collection and whether the ordinance should be repealed rather than amended. Supervisor Meek said he had sought guidance from the county attorney about whether he is required to make a motion to repeal given his prior vote on the ordinance; the board voted to table any decision until its May 12 meeting to allow the county attorney to research that procedural question.

The discussion noted that blasting companies typically plan for safety and for making damage "right" where a property owner is impacted, but at least one property owner told the board she had not received notification from the blaster or the quarry before blasting events. Board members and attendees debated new language that would require the blaster to place the date and time on video recordings of blasts and would place a corresponding burden on property owners to timestamp photos or videos they submit as evidence of fly rock.

Supervisor Waugh moved to table the item to the May 12 meeting; Supervisor House seconded and the motion carried, Ayes: 3. The board did not adopt any ordinance changes at the April 28 meeting and left options on the table, including repeal, amendment or retaining the current ordinance pending further legal advice.

The next procedural step is the May 12 board meeting, when the county attorneys advice on the proper motion and options for repeal or amendment was scheduled to be presented.